Posted
by
samzenpus
on Thursday May 08, 2014 @11:23PM
from the get-in-the-car dept.

Bruce66423 (1678196) writes in with news about a planned protest by London black-cab drivers against Uber. "London black-cab drivers are planning to cause gridlock in the city to protest against car service Uber. The Licensed Taxi Drivers Association complains that Uber's drivers are using a smartphone app to calculate fares despite it being illegal for private vehicles to be fitted with taximeters. Transport for London has declined to intervene, because it disagrees that there has been a breach of the law. LTDA now plans to force the issue by holding the action in early June. 'Transport for London not enforcing the Private Hire Vehicles Act is dangerous for Londoners,' Steve McNamara, LTDA's general secretary, told the BBC. 'I anticipate that the demonstration against TfL's handling of Uber will attract many many thousands of cabs and cause severe chaos, congestion and confusion across the metropolis.'"

Does that mean the entire LBC can be defined as a terror organization and placed in whatever Britain's equivalent of Guantanamo Bay is?

This could be a doubly pointed demonstration: Uber becomes the defacto 'taxi' service of London, and the government shows exactly what will happen if anybody things to provoke demonstrations which might infringe upon the steady operation of infrastructure:)

Does that mean the entire LBC can be defined as a terror organization and placed in whatever Britain's equivalent of Guantanamo Bay is?

This could be a doubly pointed demonstration: Uber becomes the defacto 'taxi' service of London, and the government shows exactly what will happen if anybody things to provoke demonstrations which might infringe upon the steady operation of infrastructure:)

The problem with the uber drivers though is that they may have no clue where they are going. These cabbies doing the protesting are Londons black cab drivers, that means they have passed "The Knowledge" know london pretty intimately:

This does mean I entirely agree with their protest, but comparing them to any other taxi drivers elsewhere is not a great comparison because no other Taxis in the world are expected to pass such a ridiculously difficult exam first.

You might say this is pointless now that Sat-Navs are so ubiquitous, but I would still say it is useful to be able to ask for a destination by something like "that pub off chancery lane with the yellow sign" and he instantly names it and drives you there. It is also useful if you get the road name you are going to slightly wrong and can't find it with Google maps, just jump in cab. I have actually done this one night when I had been drinking and the cabbie had a right laugh about taking me somewhere that was only two minutes away, but I had already spent 20 minutes cluelessly walking around so was more than happy to pay him the minimum fare.

Most of the time London Black Cabs are pretty awesome, if a little expensive.

Not to mention the obscenely large cabin, the ridiculously small turning circle, and the strangely-powerful engine which makes for some rather interesting overtaking and launching from a red light. They're absolutely genius, and offer a service far beyond their closest competitors the world over.

The problem with the uber drivers though is that they may have no clue where they are going.

So what? Uber isn't trying to ban black cabs, they'd still exist - and still have "The Knowledge" - and thus if they're so much better than Uber, people would choose to use them. I.e. if you wanted your taxi driver to go to "that pub off chancery lane with the yellow sign", you'd still be able to hire a black cab and pay a premium for "The Knowledge". But if you already know where you're going, or it's someplace ob

Wait, how does a cab charge someone that they did not give a ride to? Are there services where you can pre-pay for a cab ride? Who would be stupid enough to do this? In the US, at least, cab services are so unreliable. I had a scheduled pick up show up 30 mins late, even with me on the phone guiding him to my house the entire time. "Wow I have never been to this neighborhood before." "Wtf, is this your first time in this city as a cab driver?" "No, I have lived here all my life." "wtf wtf wtf".

Actually yes. The only one I'm familiar with is the 'free ride home' program. It's not actually free, but you pay a nominal fee(with the rest picked up by various donations) and get a card good for a ride home from the bar. The idea is that you can't spend the card on booze, thus always have a ride home without 'having' to drive.

Other than that, like in a lot of cases if you call ahead of time you can sometimes negotiate a better deal.

You could not be more wrong.
What they are doing is saying "we had to spend 3 years of our lives, studying and passed rigorous tests, which are repeated at regular intervals, with background checks and continuous scrutiny from "mystery shoppers", and can be kicked out of we mess up... And Uber thinks it's ok to ignore this and operate outside the framework we are forced to adhere to? Not a chance!"

Also, in reality, you want the taxi services to be regulated. I've been to coutries where they are not, and the taxis there range from "you will get cheated" to "you will get raped, killed, and robbed". And that's a fact. No way a foreigner can use the local taxis. You free the business completely, competition will drive the prices low (which is a good thing), but the low prices will force the drivers to cheat, steal, and rob, as the only ones making a profit will be the ones who do. And no, i'm not a taxi driver. I hate having to pay the local super high taxi fares, but on the other hand, the service is first class. They are on time when preordered, the cars are nice and clean and safe. The drivers won't rob you, beat you, cheat you, or anything. They actually know their area, they also have navigators in every car, as well as the taxi centrals help. They are not allowed to refuse a drive because they don't feel like going to a direction where they won't find anyone to come back the other way.

All the problems that you mention are overcome by Uber. Your driver has to register and there is a log of who your driver was. If he robs (or worse) you he'll be caught. He's not some anonymous guy driving around in a car. His picture is shown to you before he picks you up so if the wrong guy comes you refuse the ride.

I get what you're saying, by the way. My wife is from the Philippines, and pretty much all the problems you describe are problems in the Philippines. But, again, taxi drivers can take ad

Ex cab driver, Australia late 80'. Drivers here are not anonymous, passengers are. Drivers are more much more likely to be bashed and robbed than passengers. One thing though, driving a cab may not pay much but it teaches you a lot about people, it taught me there are a lot of snobby, rude, cunts in this city dressed as respectable people..

I think the problem there might be more with the local law enforcement. 99.999% of society does not undergo background tests and yet do not go around killing and raping to make a little extra on the side. What is so unique about cabbies that that they will do so, if they are not super heavily regulated?

I think the problem there might be more with the local law enforcement.

That is certainly part of the problem. And part of what often makes it easier for law enforcement to evaluate complaints and problems is an expectation of a certain accepted standard of behavior -- which regulations can sometimes help.

99.999% of society does not undergo background tests and yet do not go around killing and raping to make a little extra on the side.

Well, you zoomed in on the most extreme cases, didn't you? Mostly it's about the cheating that GP mentioned. The raping and murdering are extreme cases in extreme places -- usually, as you say, where law enforcement is problematic. But cheating people? That's much harder

I hate having to pay the local super high taxi fares, but on the other hand, the service is first class. They are on time when preordered, the cars are nice and clean and safe. The drivers won't rob you, beat you, cheat you, or anything. They actually know their area, they also have navigators in every car, as well as the taxi centrals help. They are not allowed to refuse a drive because they don't feel like going to a direction where they won't find anyone to come back the other way.

Problem is, where I live, cabs are regulated, but the service is anything but first class. They're not on time, they're not nice and clean (seems like DC usually gets other cities' worn out cabs). At night, sometimes drivers turn off their meters. They're not allowed to refuse taking you to a destination, but they do anyway. They're not allowed to force passengers to share rides, but they do anyway. They are legally required to take credit cards, but they lie and say their machines are broken (until you say

I spent four years studying and working full time, passed rigorous tests and would surely pass a background check. Why doesn't my government guarantee nobody who hasn't can work the same job as me?

I understand why there are regulations cab drivers must follow, but there is no argument beyond the safety issues, and those can be resolved without appeasing the drivers' desire to keep regulations as strict as they are. The fact that regulations exist does not mean they need to persist in their current form. A

To play the devil's advocate, it is bad for tourism and business if you don't have a taxi system that can be relied on to be safe and clean. And, from the tourism perspective, appearance of so is very important. This is most likely rooted in history, especially for a place like London, but I can see it making sense for a city like London to want to ensure that tourists can count on having a pleasant safe ride at a predictable price when taking a taxi.

Not that an Uber ride isn't necessarily so, but without licensing and regulation, there is no way to ensure you have that consistent experience, and even if Uber sets standards, they are outside the control of the city.

I think a little competition is good, but you still need a way to ensure that licensed, regulated taxis are still viable so that tourists and business travelers feel safe.

As a taxi driver in London I would be pretty pissed off if I had just spent three years of my life studying to pass a test and was laying out $500 a year to run my business and had to meet rigid standards because I was abiding by the law and others were allowed to ignore those same laws.

What these drivers are asking for is a special privilege to be a superior class of citizen: To be spared any natural competition.

And what they're doing is not protesting. It's throwing a tantrum.

In saying that, you demonstrate that you have no idea how good London cabbies are at their job, an dhow hard they have to work to get to that position.

They are vetted and must have no criminal record, and they are regulated by the Public Carriage Office

The Knowledge is notoriously difficult, and leads to them having an encyclopaedic knowledge of the streets of central London - something like every street in a 10 mile radius of Charing Cross, every hotel, cinema, theatre, etc. Every time they've been put into competition with a SatNav, the route they calculate *in their head* is superior to anything that technology can come up with.

There's no way some guy with a smartphone app can be seen as anything like a peer for a proper London Cabbie.

Okay, let's say you are right (although others here seem to paint a different story). The work hard, they are the best, and they always have minty fresh breath. Why does that matter if Uber drivers can get them from point A to point B for less in about the same time (they are probably not as efficient in route planning, but having more of them means that they are more likely to be near point A)? The Luddites produced higher quality textiles than mechanical looms, but mechanical looms produced textiles that were good enough and much cheaper.

People keep arguing that London's black cabs are better than Uber and therefore Uber should not be allowed to compete with them. If London's black cabs are everything you say they are (and I believe you are correct), why shouldn't people be free to take the risks with Uber if they feel the lower cost is worth the risk?
I just don't get the argument, "Option A is better, so people should not be allowed to choose Option B." I understand your argument, but if the cabbies driving the black cabs are so much better than the competition from Uber, why do they need government regulation to keep Uber out of the market?

I don't claim to know much about London's particular situation, but let's consider your argument in the abstract, since that's what you apparently want.

People keep arguing that London's black cabs are better than Uber and therefore Uber should not be allowed to compete with them. If London's black cabs are everything you say they are (and I believe you are correct), why shouldn't people be free to take the risks with Uber if they feel the lower cost is worth the risk?

Okay, let's apply this to medicine. Probably 90% of illnesses people show up to a doctor's office with don't require a true medical expert to treat. Some random guy who learned some stuff on the internet and maybe took a few courses on common diseases could probably address most problems.

These are the sellers of horse feed trying to fight cars not eating oats. Quite simply the day unoccupied driverless cars become a reality this entire job description will be struck from the registry. Driver of car will be right beside shoveler of coal.

We might not see this for a number of years, but what will make me laugh out loud will be when on the eve of driverless cars these same cabbies will inform us that, "People will feel safer and prefer a human cabbie."

As for Uber, the key of any new regulations should not be to protect cabbies, but to protect customers. I suspect that some dark spots with Uber will show up and thus need solving. But one of those dark spots is not the providing of much needed competition in our city's streets.

I came here to say essentially this -- I do not really see the big deal, even if it is true that people are using fare meter phone apps. So what? As long as both people are happy with the transaction, I don't see the problem. I think there are many times when government and regulations have their place, but this one seems like one that protects certain jobs at the expense of new ones.

The key is that if a cabbie is naughty then he can have his license pulled. At this point it seems that Uber will effectively do the same thing. But if you have been with Ebay a long time they are letting more and more big sellers get really sleazy with all kinds of little things. Maybe Uber will do this or maybe they won't.

This is called regulatory capture when it is the government but as Ebay shows it can happen in the private sector as well. The key difference is that(in theory) we can vote on the politicians who make the rules for cabbies.

The main difference is that if an ebay seller screws up your order of pogs , nobody dies. If you a going to be carrying passengers, you'd better have a good driving record, a chauffeur's license and a vehicle that receives regular mandated safety inspection.

And no, you can't trust the free market to self regulate. We've had airlines literally delay the installation of fixes to critical safety flaws because downing the jet to make the repairs cost too much time/money and hundreds have died as a result. If left entirely to the free market, the airlines would cut fleet maintenance to the absolute minimum to keeps the airplane in the sky, and if one of them falls from the sky every so often and crashes due to poor maintenance, it would still be cheaper to pay off the victims than to replace parts at the proper intervals.

The libertarians would say the answer to this is to choose an airline with the lowest fatality rate.

The main difference is that if an ebay seller screws up your order of pogs , nobody dies.

Depends on what is selling. There are plenty of things that you could buy off ebay that are capable of killing you if they're defective.

If you a going to be carrying passengers, you'd better have a good driving record, a chauffeur's license and a vehicle that receives regular mandated safety inspection.

Sounds good, although someone with a nasty car will get bad feedback, etc. Problem should take care of itself.

And no, you can't trust the free market to self regulate. We've had airlines literally delay the installation of fixes to critical safety flaws because downing the jet to make the repairs cost too much time/money and hundreds have died as a result. If left entirely to the free market, the airlines would cut fleet maintenance to the absolute minimum to keeps the airplane in the sky, and if one of them falls from the sky every so often and crashes due to poor maintenance, it would still be cheaper to pay off the victims than to replace parts at the proper intervals.

And, yet, airplane crashes still happen. The reason is that everybody still makes the calculation that you're talking about there, and we rely on lawsuit judgements to make it more expensive to pay off the victims.

Meters are taxed. Taxis and taxi drivers are licensed, permitted, and regulated. Fares are regulated. Uber and it's drivers ignore all of those. The "so what" is that Uber and it's drivers are ignoring the laws in multiple jurisdiction.

Uber has been operating in my city for many years now (we were one of the first to get it) and if there are any dark spots, I sure haven't seen them. You get a clean, polite driver driving a clean, well-maintained car. If for some reason you don't get a clean, polite driver driving a clean, well-maintained car you can give feedback to Uber letting them know this. I would imagine that they axe any problematic drivers fairly quickly, because reports of bad ones are rare and I haven't had any (nor has anyone I

The one thing that gets people is that they go to a supply / demand bidding system during ultra-high-demand periods like New Year's Eve. They put warnings all over the place when they do this, but prices can get VERY, VERY high.

Might sound strange, but I'm okay with this. Helps limit demand to only the essential. Personally, I prefer the service be available if you're willing to pay the price than for the drivers to decide that they'd rather have new year's off as well combined with insane demand resulting in effectively NO service for most people.

As for the black cabs, I kind of hope that the plan backfires on them as people blame THEM and not Uber for the disruption, thus calling for sanctions/loss of privilege for them, not u

What you, and your fellow Americans posting here, seem to forget (or perhaps you do not know?) is that with London black cabs, you already get a clean and well maintained car with a professional driver.
On top of that, said driver actually knows his way around, as he had to prove this when he was given his license, and continuously have to prove it again when he is tested on a regular basis.
The London black cabs are regulated and every single driver have to adhere to standards in order to keep his/her license.
Fail to drive the best route somewhere? The person in the back might just be a "mystery shopper" and you could lose your license...
The black cabs also have an app (Hailo) which can be used to book, track and pay for your ride using any of your stored cards.
This is not a case of cabbies stomping their feet and whining, they just do not take well to Ãoeber bypassing the requirements they have to adhere to.

What you, and your fellow Americans posting here, seem to forget (or perhaps you do not know?) is that with London black cabs, you already get a clean and well maintained car with a professional driver. On top of that, said driver actually knows his way around, as he had to prove this when he was given his license, and continuously have to prove it again when he is tested on a regular basis.

In that case, they've got nothing to worry about - their superior service at a competitive cost (I notice you didn't mention that - their prices are competitive, aren't they?) will result in them out-competing Uber's inferior service. Of course, their actions demonstrate that they are afraid - presumably, they're afraid that Uber will give consumers the choice to pay less, even if it means the car's a bit dirtier, and the driver a bit more ignorant. After all, the consumers can't actually be allowed any cho

I don't live in London, but I have been there (and elsewhere in the UK) many times. Yes, the ubiquitous black cab is nice, and the drivers are competent. The question really is this: Should the government prohibit consumers from paying someone else for a ride?

As long as the customer understands that they are basically hitching a ride with an unknown private person, I just don't see the problem. If I want the assurance of a black cab, I'll flag one down. If I don't care, then I don't care - it's really not much different from sticking my thumb out and hitching a ride, except I have some assurance that someone will actually stop and pick me up.

The question really is this: Should the government prohibit consumers from paying someone else for a ride?

If only this was the question.

The government is regulating the market at the moment, however Uber is trying to bypass the regulations the rest of the market have to adhere to.

Uber is doing this via providing an inferior, unregulated service, which may, or may not be competitive on price.

Most customers will not be able to tell the difference between the route selected by an Uber driver, and the route being selected by someone who is bound by a requirement to know what is the optimal route. In the end the customers will be the ones paying the price, without even knowing they were ripped off.

Want to book a cab via an app? Use the existing one for the licensed cabbies?
Want to compete in this market? Compete on even terms, get fully licensed drivers to sign up to Uber and let the proof be in the pudding.

And gets caught within the first couple, because it logs each ride, with their name, picture, and your name and picture so you can't use someone else's information. Since you were the last person to see them alive, the police will question you. If you don't crack after the first round of questioning, the police will certainly start watching you after the second or third person you were the last person they saw alive.

You could, like, research things before spouting out. Or you could sound like a dumbshit

if black cabs service is so much better than ubers, people will surely choose to use black cabs over uber. where's the problem?

really, they just want to use government to stifle competition.

They welcome competition, on fair terms. Tourists (a rather large market in London) have no way of comparing the service provided by the Uber cabs, and the licensed cabs. They have no way of knowing if the Uber driver is actually selecting the best (and cheapest) route for the journey and as Uber have no requirements for drivers to know the area they operate in, there will be plenty of times when the customers will be ripped off, without even knowing it.

There's "a little meddling" like requiring safety and price transparency. Then there's "a lot of meddling" like limiting the number of medallions (like the NY disaster), having insane pricing zones with an incomprehensible pricing scheme (DC), or requiring that a person memorize a map of one of the world's largest metro areas instead of simply using GPS. Seriously, this could all be solved with basic safety regulations and meter/GPS linkage with pricing transparency requirements. No need to insist that t

The government could of course get them used to idea and allow them to economically adapt by auctioning off cab license on say a three year term with strictly one licence per bidder and the bidder (a person, an actual human being) must prove themselves capable of operating a cab. The number of licences defined by the lowest bid achieving a minimum defined value a portion of which should be returned upon successful completion of the cab licence period so that a skilled and well behaved cabbie can use it for

London is one of the few places where having a cab license actually means something. They have to take strict tests to prove they know the streets of London, both to get their license and to keep it. They also have to provide a certain level of service and take good routes or they could get it pulled if their fare turns out to be an inspector.

Dude, considering the number of times GPS units send people driving into the ocean, or down a train tunnel, I think it's going to be a while before robotic cars are going to be safer than humans.

I really don't see how Uber are going to be protecting customers. Do they require background/criminal/driving history checks on their drivers? Do they require require vehicle inspections to determine how safe your car is? There a plethora of other requirements that I can't think of that I know have been address on other threads.

Do they require background/criminal/driving history checks on their drivers? Do they require require vehicle inspections to determine how safe your car is? There a plethora of other requirements that I can't think of that I know have been address on other threads.

I suspect that you have never gotten a hack license, worked as a cabbie or take cabs very often. I drove a cab for a short time while in college, leaving after one of the drivers I worked with was killed for pocket change. In the world of cab monopolies, money seems to go a long way. But that's how it's done in America. Money always talks and smooths the path; to believe otherwise (or even, in my opinion, believe what the money folks tell you) is a bit naive. But that's just my experience, yours might

The best solution is probably to end the protectionist rackets that limit the numbers of legal taxis.

London taxi drivers are not licensed according to their ability to buy or rent a $500,000 (or whatever the going rate is) medallion or according to a quota, but instead, according to their ability to provide a good service, specifically "the knowledge" -- knowing where every street in London is without using a map and knowing the fastest route there.

It's generally the powerful who get to write the regulations you're so fond of.

That's why we have in powerful taxi companies who "own" a government granted medallion pissed off that there might be some new competition for customer's transport dollars by independent drivers and their previously lobbied regulations aren't stopping it.

No customer needs to be "protected" from Uber, a service they are free to choose to use or not use based on their own evaluation of if it fits their needs better or not. All Uber

In NYC, that medallion will cost you over $1million. Figuring that there are only 10-20% more medallions now (~13,500) in NYC then in the 1930s, you can see that supply has artificially been restricted.

Yup. You are one hundred percent correct. But this is not a cab problem but something fundamentally wrong with present day implementations of democracy. I can say with absolute certainty that in my area that any decisions made by government that have a large corporate or wealth family interest then the government will act to in the rich family's/corporation's interest. The only time the government acts in some form of public interest is when there is effectively no monied interest.

Personally I think this why in the US abortion is such a big issue. It is largely an issue that has no monied interest (beyond the interest groups themselves) so politicians are off the leash on that issue. But look at the morning after pill. There was a monied interest behind that abortion related aspect so whoosh it was approved in 2 seconds. I am not saying that it is good or bad, just that normally anything involving abortion is normally full on trench warfare.

So in this particular case it will be interesting to watch the fairly well monied Uber fighting with the zillion somewhat less monied cab companies.

This debate is not happening because the politicians said, "Hey look the voters are pissed off with crappy and overpriced transport." They are having this debate because they were told to.

London has a peculiar system. There are black cabs - which can be hailed on the street, within certain limits they are obliged to take you to your destination (so if they're waiting at a major station hoping for a lucrative fare and you want to go around the corner, they have to take you and lose their place in the queue at the station), and the fare is calculated by an installed meter and is relative to time and distance travelled. (There is a minimum fare)

Private hire cars must be pre-booked (the booking only has to be a few minutes in advance - typically you ring up the office and then they send the nearest car to pick you up), and they're under no obligation at all to take you when you call when they hear where you want to go.

Uber uses a metering system linked to an app. Black cabs are the only taxis allowed to have a meter fitted. TfL (Transport for London) have said they don't consider the app to be "fitted" and therefore the law banning other cars from having a meter fitted doesn't apply.

Black cabs also have to pass a rather impressive test. Within the area they're obliged to carry passengers, they're required to show they know every street, landmark etc. (Apparently, when they're examined, a favourite trick of the examiners is to ask them to do a journey where roadworks have temporarily closed the "usual" way and the drivers are expected to know about it and not just "follow the diversion" but take the best route knowing in advance that there are roadworks.)

And when you start buying 3 pages of ads in the local newspaper every day, 2 hours of commercials on every local TV station, 2 hours of radio commercials daily, and spread a few hundred grand in political donations then the politicians might take your call. Until then your only choice will be to pick a candidate from one of a few entrenched parties that have already made a zillion backroom deals that didn't include your desires.

About the only time a politician will listen to you is when he is making a lis

I don't think it's quite that clear cut. When I worked as a consultant (I still do sometimes, but I'm mostly an academic these days), I wasn't paid except when I was doing work for my customers. Uber fills the same role for drivers as a recruitment agency does for consultants: they are not employing you, they're putting you in contact with customers in exchange for a cut of your fee. In the case of Uber, they are also handling the QA and payment processing.

My problem with Uber is that they don't pay its cabdrivers when they dont have any customer. If a cab driver get sick she or he will not get paid. Right now there are two few drivers for the market but when everything settles (more Uber-like companies) most taxi drivers will not get payd work thier hours they put in. Uber will still make money since it does not cost much extra to have 1000 cars or 10000 cars. But when there are two many cars for the market workers will suffer greatly.

I'm a New Yorker who makes frequent use of the yellow cabs here and has had the pleasure of using London cabs.

In NYC, it's basically the taxi's the are licensed. Any yellow cab has to have a medallion [wikipedia.org] and they are expensive... often going for $750k+ USD. Once you have the medallion you can lease/rent it to just about any hack who qualifies for a drivers license.

In London, it's the drivers that are heavily regulated. The tests are notoriously hard and London cabbies either have or acquire neurology that is much more spatially oriented than normal [wired.com].

The difference may be subtle to most people but it's important. When you get in a cab in NYC, you usually need to be explicit about the route that should be taken. Nefarious types will often take you through Times Square, Union Square, Canal Street or other traffic nightmares to run up the tab. London cabbies pride themselves (at least in my experience) on on knowing every last back road that will get you there that much faster.

So I see their point. They're a group of professionals.... who act like professionals. They've put a lot of time and effort into becoming such, I'd want to protect my turf as well.

I agree with you, in principle.However, the value that they bring has to be WORTH IT. That's how capitalism works: if someone is willing to do the job cheaper than you and they do it "well enough", they will get business. My cab driver can also do surgery and quote Tennyson? Great - I'm not paying for it.It's not the purchaser's responsibility to offer a 'living' or 'fair' payment for what you're bringing. They are going to buy the cheapest service possible that does what they want.

All of these posts and so few mentions of The Knowledge [wikipedia.org]. Its average time to train and pass is about 3 years and is widely renowned as extremely tough. There's a reason so many cabbies are ex-beat coppers - they're some of the few people who know the streets well enough to even begin. You need exceptional spatial awareness and an excellent memory for names and place details*. I've not been to NY so I can't draw any parallels, but from a cursory glance at a map it looks like it has a vastly simpler road netw

You're right. It's completely unfair of the government to establish any sort of regulations or expectations on private professional practice on behalf of it's citizen's. You have fun with SurgeonsRUs, PilotsUnited, etc.

We have a serious problem in that anything new always meets strong or even violent resistance without regard to the quality of the new idea or service. We see this with the Tesla cars where conspiracies to stop Tesla abound. And it is true that London is known for good taxi service but even in the US most taxi services are an abomination.
Further the scope of such laws could be over reaching. Am I suddenly not free to offer a neighbor $20. to drop me at the airport? I know car dealers that feel

This is what I was thinking as well... I can see people who conspire to do this losing their license if they are caught. Shouldn't be too difficult since they've actually admitted they are intending on doing it publicly.

Not really... the cabs are being artificially hamstrung by regulation that was put into place precisely because private people were doing bad things and thus government was lobbied/decided upon that regulation was required in order to protect public safety. So now there are a bunch of cabs which are following said regulations (likely at a pretty significant cost), and now this other organization is setting up a de facto cab company, but doesn't have to follow the regulation. Now... if the cab companies no longer had to follow the regulations and _still_ couldn't compete with Uber, then so be it. But as it is now you're comparing the performance of two race horses, but one of them has its legs tied together.

Becoming a black cab driver in London isn't as easy as buying a car, and that's for several reasons:- London's fucking big and fucking complicated. Having a satnav isn't necessarily enough to know where to take people, or especially how to get there efficiently- Black cabs are a part of London's reputation, attraction and transport infrastructure. There's an implicit level of quality and reliability that the licensing is intended to create- There are too many vehicles in London already, and black cabs get priority on many streets. For this reason black cab numbers are controlled- Taxi drivers gain personal access to individuals that may be in a vulnerable state. Solo ladies, young people, drunk people

Does that make Uber wrong? Not necessarily. It may be cheaper, it may be easier, it may offer a broader range of potential vehicles.

It also adds traffic to roads not designed to cater for it - the transport system in London is geared around a certain level of private traffic and a certain level of black cab activity, and Uber shifts that relationship.

So no, customers are not property. This situation is also not as straightforward as you're trying to suggest.

hardly a fair comparison.The argument here is actually quite valid, Black Cabs and cab drivers have significant government license, knowledge and regulations imposed on them which are quite expensive I understand. If Uber are bypassing those requirements then they are operating at a considerable cost advantage that no matter how good Black Cabs operate will not be able to compete price wise. I am not from the UK but having travelled to London I do find it rather nice getting in a Black Cab and actually having a driver that knows where he is going. When travelling to the US I have gotten in Cabs in Seattle and San Fran where I have had to give the driver directions from the Airport to major hotels.

The argument here is actually quite valid, Black Cabs and cab drivers have significant government license, knowledge and regulations imposed on them which are quite expensive I understand.

It sounds to me like Uber are yet another minicab (i.e., "private hire") business. There are quite a number of other such firms already operating in the UK, including within London, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of them didn't already use websites and apps to allow a customer to arrange a transaction. Heck, I know of at least one firm that allows booking via website (even if that's just something you do a few minutes ahead) and an app is just a logical extension of that.

There should be a small white space in the top tight of your browser window, if you come across a term you are unfamiliar with you can try typing it in there, your "query" will be sent to a "search engine" and you should be taken to a page of results that will help you find the answer you are looking for. Unless you are using Bing.

Yes, apparently I have. I read an article yesterday about it and this one today and that's all I've really heard about it.

It's a stupid name, and I couldn't really give a fuck about it. It's sure as shit not ubiquitous - just two cities in the whole country? Fuck that.

Sure, it's disrupting traditional business models, falling foul (or not) of various vehicle licensing regulations, accessed via a mobile phone application. It's still a niche product used by a few people, so don't go acting all fucking surprised that people haven't heard of it. Shit, it's not even available in the second most populous city in the UK or the largest city in Europe. Hardly fucking everywhere is it.

We're not talking about satnav reliant random people with a car: Every black cab driver has to pass The Knowledge, comprising a comprehensive map of London and ability to calculate the most efficient route depending on roadworks / time of day / year *in their heads*. This takes years to master and is possibly the most difficult memory and spatial relationship exercise in the world. I doubt you could do it.

Having used black cabs for a number of year going all over London (work was paying). I can tell you a great many of them fail at every point you mention. Some use satnavs - many have the AtoZ and sneak a look. Just about all bump up the fair by taking a silly route. It may have been great years ago; but not anymore.

They're expensive because they're worth it. Each black cab driver has passed an extensive testing process which demonstrates their intimate knowledge of the streets of London, being able to navigate through the maze of streets, using routes depending on traffic levels, construction, detours, etc. You can climb in to the back of a black cab, drunkenly mumble your address (or as much of it as you can remember) and the black cab will whisk you home. The black cabs themselves are designed for London streets - their acceleration, turning circles, and number of people they can carry are all optimised for London. They are tightly regulated, and it works - they are demonstrably the best taxi service in the entire world. They already have competition, and it pales in comparison to the professionalism of the fleet as a whole.

I LOVE the idea of Uber, especially if its possible to specify when you make the request what size vehicle you want (e.g. "I want a big car because I have 4 suitcases to carry")

Heck, someone should invent "Uber with UTEs/vans", it would be great for being able to pick up furniture or large items in cases where its not possible to have it home delivered (or where home delivery is expensive/would not be able to happen for ages) and where it wont fit in your normal car.

It is very clear that you have never set foot in a black cab in London.
Not only do the drivers have to pass extensive (and expensive) training and testing, they are also vetted and held to a very high standard in order to obtain and keep their licenses. They KNOW London and how to get around, to a level which I have yet to see any GPS device/app (including Waze) compete with.
Requirements Uber are completely bypassing, with the result being an unfair advantage.
Black cabs already have an app, with which you can check availability (location of cabs near you on a map), book a cab (with information about the driver) and pay for the ride using any of your stored cards.
It's called "Hailo" and I have used it on many occasions.
Personally, I would always pick a black cab in London, over some random guy who signed up for using an app with a GPS device.

what advantage are uber drivers gaining? that they provide subpar service compared to black cab?

Actually, yes! They can provide a subpar service, without the customers knowing, or having any way of knowing that the service they are paying for, is rubbish and/or overpriced.

A short while back, we had a scandal in the UK, where a lot of beef was actually more horse than anything, consumers had no way of knowing they were being cheated, as flavourings and colours were used to disguise it.

A subpar product can easily be sold without customers knowing they are being cheated, this is why we have standar

They don't. The whole story was completely misrepresented by a hysterical media. The lesson was simply to teach adjectives and illustrate that you can have a black sheep, a happy sheep a pink sheep or even a rainbow sheep.

They don't. The whole story was completely misrepresented by a hysterical media. The lesson was simply to teach adjectives and illustrate that you can have a black sheep, a happy sheep a pink sheep or even a rainbow sheep.

And thats their problem.

The conservatives dont want an educated workforce, they want unthinking proles who aren't smart enough to rise up against their masters.

If we start teaching them adjectives, then they'll learn adverbs. interjections, prepositions and before you know it, those slovenly Midlanders and lazy Yorkies know enough to say they have rights and cant be exploited in 16 hour days for minimal pay. Some of them will actually understand Industrial Relations laws, this cannot be allowed to pas